ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan have been long lasting and involved security cooperation. If Bibi is ruling out a two state solution what is his alternative? The status quo just breeds extremism on both sides. Islamic extremism is a real evil in the world, but Jewish Zealotry is also a real danger. Neither are capable of compromise. We need to add right wing Christians to that too Chinahand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 This is so tragic. I just hope a secular, technological, modern Israel doesn't endanger itself with its insistence it never needs to compromise. Can you compromise with folk whose avowed intent is to remove you from the face of the planet? What is the 50/50 position in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 And of course the only state bearing any resemblance to an open society in the area. Which offers a great deal of employment to a large number of Arab families in an otherwise impoverished, and at times un-civilised society. Lol. I am quickly becoming the George Galloway of Manx Forums. Anyway, I saw a figure recently that the war on terror and what it costs. It's about $14 million a minute. I can't provide a link because my VPN is not working, and the sites that provide the answer are blocked here. I cant even provide a link about what profits the arms companies earn from the war. They are blocked too. So, what could $14 millon a minute pay for? How much does a hospital or school cost? It's only a few million to set up a factory. Any idea how much an airstrike costs? One single airstrike. It could probably build a hospital in a place that needs it. Multiply that by how many airstrikes per day? It is madness. Multi million buck missiles being deployed against people with AK 47s and an RPG. And even better, lots of the AK's and RPG's were bought by the west and given to the people to encourage them to fight each other. My God. It is madness. And they want to make it worse. They want to go to war with Iran. Oh my goodness me. The armourers are delighted, the news people are estatic because there will be another great story. God (if he exists) is crying. Or maybe He is laughing his socks off. But goodness me Quilp, to suggest that Isreal is some sort of kind benefactor to (savage) Arab peoples shows what is really wrong with the world. If you can't see that, then we have no hope. I put the brackets in because you implied, and did not state. Apologies if my assumption is wrong. Right, replacing my George Galloway hat with my tin foil one :-) Meanwhile, the good people who make guns and missiles are probably working overtime tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I hope that the US declines to wield its veto at the next UNSC resolution calling for a Palestinian state. How can it justify doing so, any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I hope that the US declines to wield its veto at the next UNSC resolution calling for a Palestinian state. How can it justify doing so, any more? George hat on again... So you say the US should sit back and allow millions of people to live a life of occupation, outside of the UN charter of human rights? Wait a minute. Operation enduring freedom. What's that about? It was supposed to be about freedom. That went well. America is committed to world wide democracy. It's constitution is anti opression. Of course they should stand up for the impoverished and opressed. It's what made the USA what it is. They give Isreal defense aid, billions worth, so the Isreal underdog can defend itself against potential aggressors. America should always vote for human rights on the UNSC. The whole purpose of the UN is to stop wars. To help people. To protect the underdog. The pemanant members were given their membership because they were the ones to be trusted to uphold the principles of freedom and self determination. Wow. OK. George hat off :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I hope that the US declines to wield its veto at the next UNSC resolution calling for a Palestinian state. How can it justify doing so, any more? George hat on again... So you say the US should sit back and allow millions of people to live a life of occupation, outside of the UN charter of human rights? I think he said the opposite, George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I hope that the US declines to wield its veto at the next UNSC resolution calling for a Palestinian state. How can it justify doing so, any more? George hat on again... So you say the US should sit back and allow millions of people to live a life of occupation, outside of the UN charter of human rights? I think he said the opposite, George. Did he ?... In that case I throw my George hat away. I will keeps my Scotsalan hat :-) Scotsalan's hat is anti war. Anti death and destruction.. The war to end all wars finished almost 100 years ago. I struggle to comprehend how leaders of the free world can stand at the war memorials on a Sunday, then order more missiles on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 @ ScotsAlan: You are an idealist, but I think you answered all your own questions about war when you listed lots of the vested interests. It's the nature of humanity unfortunately. ETA: Don't agree with him on much, but I did enjoy Gorgeous George before the US Senate Homeland Security Committee. He is good value I have to admit. Just in case anyone still hasn't had the pleasure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Classic George. Love it. Banned in China of course. I get a 404 error for your link. Yeah... ok. I am an idealist. A stupid pacifist perhaps. No problem. It's a label. And in this modern age it's the badge of a nutter. Yeah. I accept that. The problem is... the big problem.. is that people declare themselfs to be idealists and ask us to vote for them. Have you ever heard a politician describe themself as a boring person with no opinion? Of course not. That's ludicrous. Who would vote for such a person? Yup I am an idealist, but even the politicians use it as a throwaway insult. I am not a radical. I am not putting forward any agenda, other than we stop bombing and killing innovent people. Yeah. I am an idealist. Stop killing people in the name of freedom. Does that make me a nutter? Yes, of course it does. I am a nutter because I want peace. And I am saying that as a person living in an "enemy" country. I am not wearing a bikini in a Miss IOM contest. If a person who wants peace is dimissed as a nutter, then the world has gone MAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 If a person who wants peace is dimissed as a nutter, then the world has gone MAD. I think most of humanity wants it, but most of us accept that the contrary forces of human nature, aggression and vested interest are stronger, so we settle for "peace in our time in our neck of the woods". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Quite apart from anything else while Islam remains unless Islam is allowed to dominate the whole world there can not and never will be peace. In the case of Israel, I agree that compromise with an enemy who will never be satisfied while Israel exists is lunacy to even consider. In addition if a second Palestinian state was legitimised (Jordan was the first the ) there would be war within a matter of hours caused by Palestinian terrorism, Israel responding as of course they should, and protection treaties that would have been entered into being triggered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 If a person who wants peace is dimissed as a nutter, then the world has gone MAD. I think most of humanity wants it, but most of us accept that the contrary forces of human nature, aggression and vested interest are stronger, so we settle for "peace in our time in our neck of the woods". i agree %100. So just sit back. It's easy. Other people who know better are looking after things. Nasty people want to kill you... They say so. Give them your buck. No problem. Listen to Spook. He knows. My start point would be... Spook do you have any money in American defense contractors? Do you have a conflict of interest? Would your investments profit from war? Would you promote war if you stood to gain from it? In short, is the war you promote a war for human rights, or a war for financial gain? That's the quesion spook needs to answer. Edited... spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swaraj Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 The Arab nations kicked most of the Jews out of their lands in 1948. In hindsight, it might have been prudent for the Jews to have returned the favour and kicked all the Arabs out of Jewish lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swaraj Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I am a nutter because I want peace. And I am saying that as a person living in an "enemy" country. I am not wearing a bikini in a Miss IOM contest. If a person who wants peace is dimissed as a nutter, then the world has gone MAD. There is a time for war and a time for peace. Sometimes short-term or localised war is necessary to preserve long-term and generalised peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 For the avoidance of doubt, I was indeed suggesting that the US refrain from using its veto in respect of a UNSC vote in favour of a Palestinian state - i.e. my view is that the US should allow such a resolution to pass. I think my second sentence was a bit confusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.